Bangalore District Court
Ramakrishna K vs Kiran on 15 October, 2024
KABC010168172020
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2024
PRESENT
Sri.Gangappa Irappa Patil, B.A., LL.B. (Spl.).,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
O.S.No.4586/2020
Plaintiff : Sri. M.Ramakrishna
aged about 55 years,
s/o late Buddappa,
residing at No. 19, 3rd cross,
Nehru colony,
Ballari.
(By Sri.G.M.Gadilingappa- Advocate)
-V/S-
Defendant: 1 Mr. Kiran
aged about 34 years
son of Late M.K.Shashidhar
Residing at No. 88/1, Jaya Krupa
Kadirenahalli, Padmanabha nagar,
Bengaluru - 70.
2
OS No. 4586/2020
Judgment
2 Mr. Hari Prasad
Aged about 39 years
Son of T.Gopal Naidu
Residing at No. 127, 1st main road,
1st cross, Near by RNSIT
Dwaraka Nagar h, Channasandra,
Rajarajeshwari nagar,
Bangalore 560 098
(By Sri. KM for D1 and D2)
Date of institution of the suit: 29.09.2020
Nature of the suit: Injunction Suit
Date of commencement of 02.11.2021
recording of evidence:
Date on which Judgment was 15.10.2024
pronounced:
Duration: Years Months Day
04 0 15
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 1 R/w Sec.26 of CPC, praying to pass judgment and decree against the defendants by way of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff`s peaceful possession over the suit schedule property.
3OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff as averred in the suit plaint are as follows:-
The plaintiff in his plaint pleaded that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the converted property measuring 13.04 guntas in New Survey No. 5 (old No. 17) Khatha No. 43, situated at Channasandra village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, the same has been purchased by the plaintiff under the registered Sale Deed dated 15.12.2004 which is morefully described in the schedule as Schedule `A` property and after purchasing the schedule A` property, the plaintiff filed the application before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District and got converted the schedule `A` property vide order No. ALN (S)(U) SR/88/2009- 10 dated 21.01.2010.
3. It is further averred by the plaintiff that after purchase of the schedule `A` property the children and family members of original land owner have filed a partition suit against this plaintiff in OS No. 7594/2010, the said suit has been compromised between the parties, accordingly the compromise decree has been drawn, in the said compromise decree, the plaintiff has been confirmed that , the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule `A` property.
4OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment
4. It is further averred by the plaintiff that after acquiring `A` schedule property the plaintiff has filed the application before the BBMP of Rajarajeshwarinagar, after verifying the documents, the khatha of the schedule `A` property has been registered in the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records of Rajarajeshwarinagar Sub Division , BBMP. The plaintiff is paying the tax regularly.
5. It is further averred by the plaintiff that after acquiring the schedule `A` property by the plaintiff , the plaintiff constructed the apartment in the schedule `A` property, after constructing the said apartment in the schedule `A` property, the plaintiff has retained the southern side of remaining portion of the property measuring East to West 80 feet and North to South 25 feet in New Survey No. 5 (old No. 17), Khatha No. 43 situated at Channasandra village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore which is morefully described as schedule `B` property.
6. It is further averred by the plaintiff that after retaining the schedule `B` property , he is using the schedule `B` property for gardening and horticulture purpose, the plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoyment without any hindrance from anybody.
5OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment
7. It is further averred by the plaintiff that the plaintiff has acquired the schedule `A` property by way of compromise decree, after drawing the compromise decree in OS No. 7594/2010, the first defendant has filed the IA No. 4 under Sec. 151 of CPC for recalling the compromise decree passe din OS NO. 7594/2010, after hearing both side, the Hon`ble Court has dismissed the IA filed by the first defendant.
8. It is further averred by the plaintiff that the defendants are not having any right over the schedule `B` property, on 22.06.2020 the defendants with an intention to grab the schedule `B` property, the defendants and their henchmen, goonds and rowdy elements, illegally trying to interfere with the peaceful possessed of the plaintiff`s B schedule property with JCB and other material with an intention to demolish the garden and grab the schedule `B` property, immediately the plaintiff has lodged a complaint against the defendants before the Rajararajeshwari nagar Police, on the complaint lodged by the plaintiff , the police direct him to approach the Civil Court for proper relief.
9. It is further averred by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and is in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property, even though the defendants are not having any manner of right over the schedule `B` property, only with 6 OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment an intention to grab the schedule `B` property the defendants are illegally trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the schedule `B` property. The cause of action arose to file the suit was on 20.06.2020. when the defendants try to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the schedule `B` property. Hence the plaintiff has prayed to decree the suit.
10. After the service of suit summons, the defendants have appeared through their counsel Sri KM. and filed their written statement. The plaintiff has initiated this suit with malafide intention, the plaintiff has practiced suppression veri suggestio falsi as the plaintiff has deliberately concealed many true and material facts of the case and this suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, Much before the alleged sale of the suit schedule property happened way back in 1993, the paternal grandfather of the defendant No.1 herein had formed layout in Sy. No. 5 (old Sy. No. 17) and sold several sites therein to interested parties, the schedule A property forms part and parcel of Sy. No. 5 sold by paternal grandfather of the defendant No.1. The said purchasers have now constructed houses on the said sites and are in peaceful possession. All the said purchasers are interested parties and are thus necessary parties to the above suit. There is no cause of action to file this suit.
7OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment
11. The defendants further contended that agricultural land bearing old Sy. No. 17 (New No. 05) situated in Channasandra village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 5 acres 36 guntas (larger property) originally belonged to one Munigangappa, Subsequent to his death , the lager property devolved on his sons, namely late B.M.Ramaiah, late M.Sathrughna, late M.Shantharaju and late G.Muniyappa. On 29.04.1992, the legal heirs of Munigangappa (children, daughters-in-law and grandchildren) executed an Agreement to sell in favor of one Mr. M.Krishnappa (parental grandfather of defendant No.1 herein) in respect of the Lager Property. At the time of the said Agreement Mr. M.Krishnappa paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 8,26,000/- to his vendors and obtained vacant possession of the property as part performance of the sale agreement . Subsequently, on 20.05.1992, the legal heirs of Munigangappa executed a registered General Power of Attorney in respect of the larger property in favor of the said M.Krishnapa, . The said GPA was registered as document No.
814.
12. It is further contended by the defendants that as per the GPA M.Krishnappa got the larger property formed into layout therein and carved out sites. The said sites were sold to several interested purchasers way back in the year 1993.
8OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment M.Krishnappa died on 4.12.2003, subsequently his wife, children namely Jayamma and his children namely M.K.Shashidhar, M.K.Gopinath and M.K.Kumarswamy being hie legal heirs of M.Krishnapa continued to be in actual physical, exclusive and peaceful possession of the said sites.
13. It is further contended by the defendants that in the year 2009, nearly 17 years after the GPA and sale agreement were executed the legal heirs of original owner Munigangappa filed suit against the legal heirs of M.Krishnappa in OS No. 7594/2010 and the plaintiff herein arrayed as defendant No. 8 in the said suit.
14. Upon receipt of the summons M.K.Shashidhar (father of the defendant No.1) arrayed as defendant No.3 entered appearance in OS NO. 7444/2009 as well as in OS No. 7594/2010 and also filed his W.S. Shortly thereafter, M.K.Shashidhar son of M.Krishnappa passed away, Therefore his legal heirs namely his wife and children namely Smt.Sunanda, S.Kiran (defendant No.1 herein) and S.Arun were impleaded in the suit. The defendant No.1 herein is the son of late M.K.Shashidhar and thus the grandson of M.Krishnappa.
9OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment
15. It is further contended by the defendants that the sale deed claimed by the plaintiff is a void document. The suit in OS NO. 7594/2010 was compromised, but defendant No. 6 and 7 who are the legal heirs of M.Krishnappa were not made parties to the said compromise, thus the compromise was partial and were entered into behind the back of defendant No. 6 and 7.
16. It is further contended by the defendants that upon learning the compromise the defendant No. 6 filed IA seeking to set aside the compromise, but the Hon`ble Court rejected the application on the ground that the defendant No.6 can file a separate suit seeking to set aside the compromise petition. The said order was passed on 18.2.2019 and no order passed on merits
17. It is further contended by the defendants that the plaintiff herein claiming to be the owner of the property based on the alleged Sale Deed dated 15.12.2004 executed by alleged GPA holder M.Krikshnappa, since the said person had no authority to execute such a sale deed, the plaintiff does not get any right, title or interest over the property.
18. It is further contended by the defendants that the learned Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 10th 10 OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment March, 2015 was pleased to set aside the aforesaid Mutation effect in favor of the plaintiff herein and the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property.
19. The plaintiff deliberately not produced the Sale Deed at the time of filing of the suit. The said Sale Deed is concocted. It is further contended by the defendants that the defendant No.1 had acquired right, title and interest in respect of site No. 97 and 98, having old Khatha No. 17, New Khatha No. 5 in Channasandra village, each measuring 1000 square feet, the said sites were purchased by the defendant No.1 under two separate registered Sale Deeds dated 20.02.2015 from its erstwhile owners. Thereafter the Khatha in respect of the sites were transferred in favor of the defendant No.1. Recently, the defendant No. 1 by way of registered Sale Deed dated 12.06.2020 has conveyed site No. 97 in favor of defendant No.2. Therefore, the khatha in respect of Site No. 97 is transferred to the name of defendant No.2 herein. Thus, as on date, the defendant No. 1 is the absolute owner of site No. 98 and defendant No.2 is the absolute owner of site No. 97.
20. The defendants have denied the para 3 to 14 of the plaint and prays to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff as there is no cause of action to file the present suit and the same is filed only to harass the defendants to claim unlawful 11 OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment possession over the suit schedule property by virtue of a decree of permanent injunction. The averment that the cause of action arose on 22.06.2020 when the defendants try to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff is utterly false. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
21. Based on the pleadings of both the parties, following Issues are framed by my learned Predecessor-in- office.
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the interference of the defendants with his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as alleged in the suit plaint.?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
4. What order or decree?
22. After framing of the Issues, the case was posted for recording of evidence. The plaintiff has filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he has been examined as PW.1 and he has got marked Ex.P. 1 to 26. On the other hand the 12 OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment defendant is examined as DW. 1 and he has got marked Ex.D.1 to 12 are got marked.
23 Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant. Perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and other materials available on record.
24. Having done so, this court answers to the aforesaid Issues as follows:
Issue No.1 to 3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
25. ISSUE NO.1 TO 3: These two Issues are
inter related to each other and as such they are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant with respect to the suit schedule property. To prove his case the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked 26 documents as per Ex.P. 1 to P.26 and deposes that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the converted property measuring 13.04 guntas 13 OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment in New Survey No. 5 (old No. 17) Khatha No. 43, situated at Channasandra village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, the same has been purchased by the plaintiff under the registered Sale Deed dated 15.12.2004 which is morefully described in the schedule as Schedule `A` property and after purchasing the schedule A` property, the plaintiff filed the application before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District and got converted the schedule `A` property vide order No. ALN (S)(U) SR/88/2009-10 dated 21.01.2010.
26. He further deposed that after purchase of the schedule `A` property the children and family members of original land owner have filed a partition suit against this plaintiff in OS No. 7594/2010, the said suit has been compromised between the parties, accordingly the compromise decree has been drawn, in the said compromise decree, the plaintiff has been confirmed that , the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule `A` property.
27. He further deposed that he has filed the application before the BBMP of Rajarajeshwarinagar, after verifying the documents, the khatha of the schedule `A` property has been registered in the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records of Rajarajeshwarinagar Sub Division , BBMP. The plaintiff is paying the tax regularly.
14OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment
28. He further deposes that after acquiring the schedule `A` property by the plaintiff , the plaintiff constructed the apartment in the schedule `A` property, after constructing the said apartment in the schedule `A` property, the plaintiff has retained the southern side of remaining portion of the property measuring East to West 80 feet and North to South 25 feet in New Survey No. 5 (old No. 17), Khatha No. 43 situated at Channasandra village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore which is morefully described as schedule `B` property.
29. He further deposes that after retaining the schedule `B` property , he is using the schedule `B` property for gardening and horticulture purpose, the plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoyment without any hindrance from anybody.
30. He further deposes that he has acquired the schedule `A` property by way of compromise decree, after drawing the compromise decree in OS No. 7594/2010, the first defendant has filed the IA No. 4 under Sec. 151 of CPC for recalling the compromise decree passe din OS NO. 7594/2010, after hearing both side, the Hon`ble Court has dismissed the IA filed by the first defendant.
15OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment
31. He further deposes that the defendants are not having any right over the schedule `B` property, on 22.06.2020 the defendants with an intention to grab the schedule `B` property, the defendants and their henchmen, goonds and rowdy elements, illegally trying to interfere with the peaceful possessed of the plaintiff`s B schedule property with JCB and other material with an intention to demolish the garden and grab the schedule `B` property, immediately the plaintiff has lodged a complaint against the defendants before the Rajararajeshwari nagar Police, on the complaint lodged by the plaintiff , the police direct him to approach the Civil Court for proper relief.
32. He further deposes that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule `B` property , the same has been acquired by him lawfully and the defendant is not having any right over the property, He has got primafacie case in his favor.
33. Though, the plaintiff deposes that he purchased the suit schedule `A` property under the registered Sale Deed dated 15.12.2004 he did not produced and got marked the same. On the contrary during the course of cross-examination of PW.1. defendant has confronted the Sale Deed of plaintiff 16 OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment and the same has been marked as Ex.D.1. The plaintiff admits that as per Ex.D. 1 Sale Deed he purchased the said schedule `A` property. On perusal of Ex.D. 1 Sale Deed it discloses that plaintiff has purchased the site No. 94, 95, 96 and 99.
34. As per Ex.D. 1 Sale Deed the total extent of all the sites is 7200 square feet, but the plaintiff contends that he has purchased the suit schedule `A` property under Ex.D.1 to the extent of 13.04 guntas which is equal to 14,157 square feet. On perusal of contentions of PW.1 it clearly shows that plaintiff is claiming the relief of permanent injunction with respect to the proprty more than what he has purchased under Ex.D. 1. The boundaries mentioned in Ex.D. 1 and boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule `A` property are different. Further the boundaries mentioned in suit schedule `B` property and boundaries mentioned in Ex.D.1 Sale Deed are not tallying with each other. If the plaintiff is relying upon the Sale Deed from which he has purchased the suit schedule `A` property then the boundaries of suit schedule `A` property and boundaries of schedule of Sale Deed at Ex.D. 1 shall be tally with each other. But here in this case boundaries are not tallying with each other.
35. Moreover DW. 1 in his evidence deposes that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule `B` property 17 OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment as he has no manner of right, title and interest or possession over the same. Therefore the question of interference does not arise. Infact the plaintiff is a tresspasser trying to usurp the property of the defendant.
36. The DW.1 deposes that agricultural land bearing old Sy. No. 17 (New No. 05) situated in Channasandra village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 5 acres 36 guntas (larger property) originally belonged to one Munigangappa, Subsequent to his death , the lager property devolved on his sons, namely late B.M.Ramaiah, late M.Sathrughna, late M.Shantharaju and late G.Muniyappa. On 29.04.1992, the legal heirs of Munigangappa (children, daughters-in-law and grandchildren) executed an Agreement to sell in favor of one Mr. M.Krishnappa (parental grandfather of defendant No.1 herein) in respect of the Lager Property. At the time of the said Agreement Mr. M.Krishnappa paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 8,26,000/- to his vendors and obtained vacant possession of the property as part performance of the sale agreement . Subsequently, on 20.05.1992, the legal heirs of Munigangappa executed a registered General Power of Attorney in respect of the larger property in favor of the said M.Krishnapa, . The said GPA was registered as document No. 814.
18OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment
37. It is deposed by DW.1 that as per the GPA M.Krishnappa got the larger property formed into layout therein and carved out sites. The said sites were sold to several interested purchasers way back in the year 1993.
38. It is further deposed that M.Krishnappa died on 4.12.2003, subsequently his wife, children namely Jayamma and his children namely M.K.Shashidhar, M.K.Gopinath and M.K.Kumarswamy being his legal heirs of M.Krishnapa continued to be in actual physical, exclusive and peaceful possession of the said sites.
39. It is further deposed that the defendants that in the year 2009, nearly 17 years after the GPA and sale agreement were executed the legal heirs of original owner Munigangappa filed suit against the legal heirs of M.Krishnappa in OS No. 7594/2010 and the plaintiff herein arrayed as defendant No. 8 in the said suit. Upon receipt of the summons M.K.Shashidhar (father of the defendant No.1) arrayed as defendant No.3 entered appearance in OS NO. 7444/2009 as well as in OS No. 7594/2010 and also fie;ld his W.S. Shortly thereafter, M.K.Shashidhar son of M.Krishnappa passed away, Therefore his legal heirs namely his wife and children namely Smt.Sunanda, S.Kiran (defendant No.1 herein) and S.Arun were impleaded in the suit. The defendant No.1 herein is the 19 OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment son of late M.K.Shashidhar and thus the grandson of M.Krishnappa. It is further deposed by DW.1 that the sale deed claimed by the plaintiff is a void document. The suit in OS NO. 7594/2010 was compromised, but defendant No. 6 and 7 who are the legal heirs of M.Krishnappa were not made parties to the said compromise, thus the compromise was partial and were entered into behind the back of defendant No. 6 and 7. DW.1 has further deposed by DW.1 that upon learning the compromise the defendant No. 6 filed IA seeking to set aside the compromise, but the Hon`ble Court reject the application on the ground that the defendant No.6 can file a separate suit seeking to set aside the compromise petition. The said order was passed on 18.2.2019 and no order passed on merits
40. It is further deposed by DW.1 that the plaintiff herein claiming to be the owner of the property based on the alleged Sale Deed dated 15.12.2004 executed by alleged GPA holder M.Krikshnappa, since the said person had no authority to execute such a sale deed, the plaintiff does not get any right, title or interest over the property.
41. It is further deposed by DW. 1 that the learned Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 10 th March, 2015 was pleased to set aside the aforesaid Mutation effect in favor 20 OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment of the plaintiff herein and the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property.
42. DW.1 deposes that the plaintiff deliberately has not produced the Sale Deed at the time of filing of the suit. The said Sale Deed is concocted. It is further deposed by the DW.1 that the defendant No.1 had acquired right, title and interest in respect of site No. 97 and 98, having old Khatha No. 17, New Khatha No. 5 in Channasandra village, each measuring 1000 square feet, the said sites were purchased by the defendant No.1 under two separate registered Sale Deeds dated 20.02.2015 from its erstwhile owners. Thereafter the Khatha in respect of the sites were transferred in favor of the defendant No.1. Recently, the defendant No. 1 by way of registered Sale Deed dated 12.06.2020 has conveyed site No. 97 in favor of defendant No.2. Therefore, the khatha in respect of Site No. 97 is transferred to the name of defendant No.2 herein. Thus, as on date, the defendant No. 1 is the absolute owner of site No. 98 and defendant No.2 is the absolute owner of site No. 97.
43. He has also deposed that the plaintiff has filed the above suit with an intention to grab the sites belonging to DW.1 and defendant No.2 and the plaintiff has not produced any iota of evidence to prove his case.
21OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment
44. On overall examination of evidence of PW.1 and DW.1, cross-examination of PW.1 and DW.1 and Ex.D. 1, it discloses that plaintiff has not certain about existence of suit schedule property. To claim the permanent injunction plaintiff has to come up with clean hands and he has to ascertain the true facts before the court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out any case to grant the relief of permanent injunction. Hence this court answers Issue No.1 to 3 in the Negative
45. ISSUE No.4:- For the discussions made above, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Sr.Shr/SGI, script thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of October, 2024).Digitally signed by GANGAPPA I
GANGAPPA I PATIL PATIL
Date: 2024.10.22 16:27:42 +0530
(Gangappa Irappa Patil)
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
22
OS No. 4586/2020
Judgment
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 K.Ramakrishna List of the documents marked for the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of order sheet in OS.7594/2010 Ex.P.2 Certified copy of IA NO.4 in OS No.7594/10 Ex.P.3to6 4 photos Ex.P.7 CD Ex.P.8 Development charge receipt issued by BBMP Ex.P.9 Property tax receipt for the year 2021-22 Ex.P.10 Property tax receipt for the year 2020-21 Ex.P.11 Property tax receipt for the year 2019-20 Ex.P.12 Property tax receipt for the year 2018-19 Ex.P.13 Property tax receipt for the year 2017-18 Ex.P.14 Property tax receipt for the year 2016-17 Ex.P15 Certificated dated 30.10.2021 issued by BBMP Ex.P.16 Demand extract for the year 2021-22 Ex.P.17 Certified copy of compromise decree in OS No.7594/10 Ex.P.18 Certified copy of Letter dated 28.05.2012 issued by the court regarding registration of decree in OS No.7594/10 Ex.P.19 Conversion order dated 21.01.2010 23 OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment Ex.P.20 Survey sketch of Sy.No.5/2 Ex.P.21 Khatha certificate dated 30.01.2010 Ex.P.22 Demand extract for the year 2009-10 of Sy.
NO.5/2 Ex.P.23 Property tax receipt for the year 2008-09 Ex.P.24 Property tax receipt for the year 2009-10 Ex.P.25 Property tax receipt for the year 2010-11 Ex.P.26 Acknowledgment issued by PSI., RR Nagar Police Station List of the witnesses examined for the defendants:
D.W.1 S.Kiran List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D.1 Certified Copy of Sale Deed dated 15.12.2004 Ex.D.2 Certified copy of Order in RA(S) No.310/2010-11. Ex.D.3 Original sale deed dated 20.02.2017. Ex.D.4 Certified copy of property tax receipt from 2015-16 to 2023-24 with respect to site NO.98. ( 9 in numbers) Ex.D.5 Certified copy of E.C of site of No.98 from 01.04.2004 to 02.12.2021.
Ex.D.6 Online certified copy of sale deed dated 20.02.2015.
Ex.D.7 Online certified copy of sale deed dated 12.06.2020.
Ex.D.8 Property tax receipt of Site NO.97 for the year 2023-24.
24OS No. 4586/2020 Judgment Ex.D.9 Online certified copy of E.C of site No.97 from 01.04.2004 to 30.06.2023.
Ex.D.10 B property register extract of Site no.98. Ex.D.11 B property register extract of Site no.97. Ex.D.12 Certificate u/s. 64-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act.
Digitally signed by GANGAPPA I GANGAPPA I PATIL PATIL
Date: 2024.10.22 16:28:01 +0530
(Gangappa Irappa Patil)
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
25
OS No. 4586/2020
Judgment
Judgment pronounced in the open court
(vide separate order)
ORDER
The suit filed by the plaintiff is
hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.